24-07-2004 00:01									#31
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

Then not only do they have little to do with real darwinism, they have no understanding of it. The fit are the ones who breed; you don't determine who's fit and then "allow" them to do so.

	24-07-2004 00:23									#32
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

Yes, so why were you arguing about this if you didn't know what social darwinists were?

	24-07-2004 00:49									#33
	Increase the size of your Attachments

social darwinism was more seen as a point of fact in the late 19th century. Those with traits positive in modern society (intelligence for example) would succeed, would live comfortably and probably live a longer life, and, therefore, would have more children to pass on his traits, traits which would be shared by marriage to someone of similiar social standing who it could be assumed would have equally positive traits.

social darwinism wasn't a eugenic ideal. it was a fact.

It was also the motivating force behind public education as it was soon realized that capable people were spending their lives in mines and factories because they were poor from childhood and couldn't get the education that would enable them to shine. thank god for social darwinists fostering public education.

	24-07-2004 01:06									#34
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

quote: Originally posted by Boris Godunov But then your comment that "would not the social ideological slant of the biological science behind "survival of the fittest" mean that to give any kind of charity to those in need of it is undermining better attainment of human society overall?" is easily answered by this, as there's no necessary biological reason for such an ideological slant.

Right -- I agree that there is no biological reason for the ideological slant. But when one studies the history in how the original, biological theory of Darwin (and his predecessors) was overworked by trying to apply this theory to the social realm, it can result in, for instance, justification of late nineteenth century European colonialism.

Or, one could fallaciously try to weld Malthus's theory about "natural" causes of population decrease such as war and poverty with Darwin's theory, which was originally only meant as a biological theory.

	24-07-2004 01:11									#35
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

and in any event, social darwinists would have said charity (in terms of teaching someone to fish as opposed to giving them fish) to the proper people is biologically necessary to compensate for the inequalities of those better men being born into poverty

	24-07-2004 01:14									#36
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

I disagree AS -- social Darwinist, in my understanding, would find inequality to be acceptable as part of what they would believe to be the "natural" selection process of human society.

White supremacists in United States in the late nineteenth century and early twentieth century sometimes used social Darwinism to justify repression of blacks.

	24-07-2004 01:16									#37
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

it should also be noted that social darwinism didn't only apply to groups of individuals but also to whole societies. it was an organic view of history opposed to, but borrowing some ideas from, Marx' dialectic materialism

	24-07-2004 01:18									#38
	Put an end to popups!

quote: White supremacists in United States in the late nineteenth century and early twentieth century sometimes used social Darwinism to justify repression of blacks.

From "Progress: Its Law and Causes" by Herbert Spencer (April 1857):

quote: From the earliest traceable cosmical changes down to the latest results of civilization, we shall find that the transformation of the homogeneous into the heterogeneous, is that in which Progress essentially consists....

quote: Whether an advance from the homogeneous to the heterogeneous is or is not displayed in the biological history of the globe, it is clearly enough displayed in the progress of the latest and most heterogeneous creature-Man. It is alike true that, during the period in which the Earth has been peopled, the human organism has become more heterogeneous among the civilized divisions of the species ­ and that the species, as a whole, has been growing more heterogeneous in virtue of the multiplication of races and the differentiation of these races from each other....

	24-07-2004 01:21									#39
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

AS -- that is not the ideological slant of Darwinism that I claimed was used by white supremacists. Yeah you posted a different slant on Darwinism -- but that does not refute the fact that white supremacists have used their own slant of Darwinism.

	24-07-2004 01:23									#40
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

Herbet Spencer coined the term Social Darwinism and is considered the father of the idea... his is THE slant.

	24-07-2004 01:24									#41
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

Yes and then other people constructed different ideas of what social Darwinism entails. Most historians agree that social Darwinism had been used to justify European colonialism and in United States, Jim Crow laws and use of lynch mobs.

	24-07-2004 01:49									#42
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

quote: Originally posted by Albert Speer Herbet Spencer coined the term Social Darwinism

He certainly did not. The phrase Social Darwinism was later applied to his philosophy, but he didn't coin it. Spencer referred to his theory as "Social Evolution."

Social Darwinism is very difficult to pin down, because different people used the term in different ways, and then others ascribed it to certain people differently. However, I'm not sure that what MrFun seems to be referencing (extreme, overt racism) really ever existed as an actual stated philosophy. I think some racists incorrectly co-opted the term for their ends, certainly, but I also think that anti-Darwinians rather liberally applied the term to people they wished to villify.

	24-07-2004 02:09									#43
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

You could say that Malthus was the first Social Darwinist with his 'law' of population growth. In this case, or if you think Spencer was the first Social Darwinist, the theory started out classist, but not necessarily racist if you assume that some races don't tend to be of any certain class, but of course they do.

	24-07-2004 03:49									#44
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

Let's take Social Darwinism back from the Nazis. They are on the losing end of the theory anyway...

	24-07-2004 03:50									#45
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

Social Darwinism moved a few steps forward with the "Bell Curve" report.

	24-07-2004 04:04									#46
	Get a bigger avatar today!

quote: Most historians agree that social Darwinism had been used to justify European colonialism and in United States, Jim Crow laws and use of lynch mobs.

i'm not seeing how Social Darwinists like Carnegie or Rockefeller were overtly racist... nor how they were even classist. they gave huge amounts of money to fostering education for the social darwinist goal of having all have the potential to succeed.

it can not be stressed enough how social darwinism is not laissez-faire capitalism... it conceeds that some people are born into the modern, capitalist-induced situation where, no matter their skill, intelligence, or ingenuity, they will have a tough time succeeding. social darwinism does not work if there is no public education system.

	24-07-2004 04:24									#47
	Increase Your PM Length

Read the history of the idea of evolution itself. By 1859, when the first edition of Darwin's book was published, people had already talked about evolution for one hundred years since the middle of the eighteenth century.


What was so Earth-shattering about Darwin's book was not because he introduced an unprecedented theory, but that Darwin's work became out of control. It became out of control when people began applying this biological, scientific theory to human society and it had terrible repercussions for the late nineteenth century on through the first half of the twentieth century in different parts of the world.


You speak of only one way in which some people have butchered and mangled Darwin's scientific theory for their own purposes and then claim that this refutes the other slant that I have already mentioned (justification for repression and persecution of other races).

	24-07-2004 04:29									#48
	Increase Your PM Length

Fun:

this thread was started to discuss the idealogical, intellectual, and philosophical merits/problems with social darwinism and if they are equal to libertarianism.

i have been stating the philosophical and idealogical aspects of social darwinism, as described by those who had intellectual merit (ie- Spencer or even Carnegie)... i dont give a ****, how other, likely stupid and without the intellectual merit of Spencer, people wrongly viewed social darwinism or how they twisted it to other ends. that isn't what we are debating, mrfun...

	24-07-2004 04:32									#49
	Get a bigger avatar today!

quote: Originally posted by MrFun Read the history of the idea of evolution itself. By 1859, when the first edition of Darwin's book was published, people had already talked about evolution for one hundred years since the middle of the eighteenth century. What was so Earth-shattering about Darwin's book was not because he introduced an unprecedented theory, but that Darwin's work became out of control. It became out of control when people began applying this biological, scientific theory to human society and it had terrible repercussions for the late nineteenth century on through the first half of the twentieth century in different parts of the world. You speak of only one way in which some people have butchered and mangled Darwin's scientific theory for their own purposes and then claim that this refutes the other slant that I have already mentioned (justification for repression and persecution of other races).

Darwin himself was against social Darwinism. He said that was not what he had claimed in his books.

	24-07-2004 04:44									#50
	Support Apolyton

quote: Originally posted by MrFun What was so Earth-shattering about Darwin's book was not because he introduced an unprecedented theory, but that Darwin's work became out of control. It became out of control when people began applying this biological, scientific theory to human society and it had terrible repercussions for the late nineteenth century on through the first half of the twentieth century in different parts of the world.

This is simply not true. What was earth-shattering about Darwin's book was that he assembled, for the first time, so much evidence to support evolution AND he proposed a previously unknown mechanism--Natural Selection. THAT'S what made Darwin's theory so potent. The scientific world, which pre-Darwin had been vastly Creationist in its view, switched to be evolutionist virtually overnight because the evidence he presented was so overwhelming. The entire future of biology came to be shaped by what Darwin discovered. And that's Darwin's true legacy.

Social Darwinism has NOTHING to do with Darwin, it simply took his name to lend some sort of scientific legitimacy to its creed, a creed Darwin himself rejected.

Frankly, I'm not even convinced that there was this Social Darwinism movement you're purporting. I think it was in many ways a bogeyman used to villify opponents. The right-wing still likes to use the term today when debates take place over abortion and assisted suicide.

	24-07-2004 04:48									#51
	Suffering from ads?

Social darwinism was a natural extension of darwinism though... the historical and general society theories, yes that was a stretch but on the human level, the struggle of survival still applies in the industrial world. Spencer mistakingly thought acquired traits are also passed on but his point was not lost by this. other traits such as increased intelligence are genetically based so Spencer's point that those who succeed should procreate the most is still valid, though not as clearly as he thought.

there was no betrayal of Darwin by Spencer or any of the social darwinists.

	24-07-2004 04:52									#52
	Support Apolyton

but natural selection still functions in the industrial world, boris. are you denying this? if you are not denying this, then how is social darwinism anything but a natural extension of darwinism?

	24-07-2004 04:54									#53
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

In Sweden, political science doctorates could loose their funding if they suggest any human behaviour is caused by biology. That's why it's called POLITICAL science instead of simply SCIENCE.

	24-07-2004 05:16									#54
	Remove this text

quote: Originally posted by Albert Speer other traits such as increased intelligence are genetically based so Spencer's point that those who succeed should procreate the most is still valid, though not as clearly as he thought.

What kind of intelligence are you talking about. For example, males entering reproductive years are also often at risk of death. They volunteer for wars, do stupid stunts and stuff like that. Are these people stupid? There certainly isn't any evidence of that. Some people with this personality type are quite smart.

This is a common claim that you are making, but can you explain yourself instead of just saying that smart people are more fit for survival.

	24-07-2004 05:24									#55
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

smart people are NOT necessarily more fit for survival in a natural setting of hunting and gathering. they are more fit for survival in the modern context, however, where mere survival is not the only end of one's traits... rather, success (by whatever standards it is measured as per society [for capitalism, money]), is the end of one's traits.

The social darwinist point is that intelligent people possess a trait which makes them more likely to succeed in achieving our certain value goal. The achieving of this goal is important for human progress, social darwinists assume, and therefore, the trait that allowed for the achievement is more important than traits that do not allow for this achievement. therefore, intelligent people should reproduce more than people who are less intelligent...

the social darwinist view of a proper society is one where those who achieve the value end (money in this case) will have more offspring than their 'poorer' competitors.

	24-07-2004 05:33									#56
	Full PM-box? Change here!

quote: Originally posted by Boris Godunov Let's keep in mind that "Social Darwinism" has very little to do with actual Darwinian evolutionary theory. There's nothing in biological Darwinism that precludes charity whatsoever. In fact, it's quite possible that altruism is an evolutionary trait designed to help the species.

Altruism as an evolutionary trait would be the best one ever developed if it weren't for the 'freeriders' who abuse this. That's why charity won't work. There will always be people who'll get off with something that was meant to be given to another person!
So basically giving charity will never get the job done to give everybody the best chances of life.

	24-07-2004 05:47									#57
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

quote: Originally posted by Albert Speer intelligent people should reproduce more than people who are less intelligent...

Where is your proof that this 'intellegence' is passed on to future generations?

	24-07-2004 05:50									#58
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

kidicious:

Spencer wrongly thought acquired traits were passed on which they are not. whether other traits such as intelligence can be passed on is up for scientific debate but half the scientific community would say intelligence is passed on genetically. we won't know for certain until the genome has been completely mapped.

	24-07-2004 05:53									#59
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Albert Speer kidicious: Spencer wrongly thought acquired traits were passed on which they are not. whether other traits such as intelligence can be passed on is up for scientific debate but half the scientific community would say intelligence is passed on genetically. we won't know for certain until the genome has been completely mapped.

You're saying that a specific type of intelligence is inhereted. Are you saying that rich people have the greatest intellingence or this type?

	24-07-2004 06:00									#60
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

no... intelligent people have a better chance of becoming rich...